Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
VICTOR STOVE COMPANY, Appellant, v. HALL-NEAL FURNACE COMPANY, Appellee, 1928 — 24 F.2d 894 · caselaw · US
IP
VICTOR STOVE COMPANY, Appellant, v. HALL-NEAL FURNACE COMPANY, Appellee
24 F.2d 894·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit·1928
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
VICTOR STOVE COMPANY, Appellant, v. HALL-NEAL FURNACE COMPANY, Appellee.
Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted January 11, 1928.
Decided March 5, 1928.
No. 2008.
Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
L. B. Kemon, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
E. W. Bradford, of Washington, D. C., for appellee. >
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice, and SMITH. Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
[MAJORITY — MARTIN, Chief Justice.]
MARTIN, Chief Justice.
This is an appeal from a decision denying an application, filed by the Victor Stove Company, for the cancellation of the trade-mark registration of the word “Victor,” issued May 22, 1923, to the Hall-Neal Furnace Company for domestic heating furnaces.
The application for cancellation herein involved raises the same question as that decided by- this court concurrently herewith in appeal No. 2007, Victor Stove Co. v. Hall-Neal Furnace Co., 58 App. D. C.-, 24 F.(2d) 893. Consistently with the court’s decision in that case, the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, herein appealed from, is affirmed.